© Features the other press e Barbara K. Adamski e opfeatures@netscape.net Behind the Bite Barbara K. Adamski Features Editor “When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news,” (John B. Bogart, 1848-1921). Whatever hap- pened to that creed of journalists? Has it been forgot- ten? Have dogs changed? Dog bites are big news these days—both in the media and around the water cool- ers. Certain breeds have always been singled out. The vicious Doberman of the seventies has been replaced by the pit bull. Rottweilers are often subjected to fin- ger pointing. But notice the capitalization in the two previous sentences. “Doberman” and Rottweiler” are capitalized; “pit bull” is not. That’s because a pit bull is not an actual breed, but a loosely used term encom- passing several breeds of dogs. Nelson ITP dictionary defines “pitbull”—one word—as slang, “marked by or exhibiting great aggression, ruthlessness, and often bitterness.” For “pit bull’—two words—it directs the reader to “American Staffordshire terrier,” which states, “a strong, muscular dog of a breed developed in the United States by crossing a the bull-dog with a ter- rier.” Sounds simple enough. In reality, however, that is just a small part of the bull-dog/terrier crosses. There are several bull-and-terrier breeds, including Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, and American Staffordshire Terrier. All are known for their affection for humans. Bully Breeds, a special issue compiled by the editors of Dog Fancy magazine, specifically lists “good with children” as a trait of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, and American Staffordshire Terrier. The American Kennel Club agrees, stating that the American Staffordshire Terrier is an “especially good dog for children” and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier has “a great affection for people.” (The American Pit Bull Terrier is not a breed recognized by the AKC, and therefore is not listed on their website.) The city of New Westminster, on the other hand, officially defines a “vicious dog” as: i) any dog which has bitten another animal or human being without provocation; or ii) any dog with a known propensity, tendency, or dis- position to attack without provocation other animals or humans; or iti) a Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Pit Bull, Staffordshire Bull American Staffordshire terrier or an dog of mixed breeding which includes the aforementioned breeds. Terrier, A “dangerous dog,” according to the city, is a dog that: gi g y g i) has killed or seriously injured a person; ii) the Animal Control Officer has reasonable grounds Cesc. Page 14 e http://www.otherpress.ca to believe is likely to kill or seriously injure a person; or iii) while in a public place or while on private proper- ty, other than property owned or occupied by the per- son responsible for the dog, has killed or seriously injured a companion animal or a domestic animal. So, according to the New Westminster by-laws, it would seem that the dangerous dog is the dog for which the public would want stricter guidelines. But that isn’t the case. Note that a dog can kill a compan- ion animal or a domestic animal if it is on its owner's property and still manage to avoid being classified as “dangerous” —unless, of course, one can prove that the attack was unprovoked, which would make the dog “vicious” but not “dangerous.” A bull-and-terrier breed of any parentage, however, is marked as “vicious” whether it’s a friendly Petey the pup of Little Rascals fame or not. Moreover, a vicious bull-and-terrier breed (even a friendly one) is in violation of by- law number 6849, 2003 if it is not at all times securely con- fined confined outdoors in indoors, or an enclosed pen or other structure that is adequately constructed to prevent the entry of any unauthorized person or to prevent the dog from escaping. Reading between the lines, if a burglar breaks into the yard and gets nipped in the butt by a bull-and-terrier breed, the owner faces—in addition to criminal charges—a fine. If a Cocker Spaniel were to bite the burglar in the butt, it could be argued that the situation was pro- voked. But what about the “dangerous” dog—the dog that has already killed or injured a person? Dangerous dogs just need to be kept indoors or in an enclosure. If a burglar does get bitten, a legal case could possibly be made in favour of the dog. Even more interesting are the fines for vicious and dangerous dogs if they are found at large. For a first offence, the impoundment fee for both vicious and dangerous dogs is $250 (for other dogs, the fee is $30; $60 if unlicensed). Second offences are $500 for both “A history of dog-fighting is partly responsible for the breed's friendliness to people because for cen- turtes bull-and-terrier breeders culled dogs that showed aggression towards humans.” October 22, 2003 vicious and dangerous dogs ($60 for other licensed dogs, $60 plus license fee for unlicensed). Now in the case of subsequent offences, there is a huge difference. The vicious dog—remember, a vicious dog may not have bitten anyone, ever—costs $1000, and the dan- gerous dog that may have killed is only $500. Why should the owner of a bull-and-terrier breed be penal- ized because their dog is of a certain breed, not neces- sarily, and highly unlikely, aggressive toward humans by nature? Are “pit bulls” dangerous? Have they been known to kill or seriously injure? Sure, there are dog stories in the press all the time, and many of these stories have the classic pit bull vil- lain. But are the breeds listed actual fact? Take, example, the Shenica White story of last year. The dogs were reportedly Mastiff/Rottweiler crosses. Later, they were purported to be pit bulls. After weeks being labelled — otherwise, there was a particular week when three differ- for ent media outlets referred to the dogs as “pit bull crosses.” Where did that come from? Was it sensation- alism, shoddy report- ing, or misunderstand- ing? Furthermore, the Supreme Court writ recently filed statements (according to The Province) the dogs were Rottweiler/pit bull crosses. Did some- one test the DNA of the dogs that were put down last year? Why do two other Province reporters state those same dogs were Mastiff/Rottweiler crosses? A Province news article on a different dog attack states the attacker was “believed to be a pit bull.” Believed by whom? When queried on the inconsisten- cy within The Provinces articles, one reporter quipped, “We don’t identify the dogs, the police do.” But police aren't trained in dog identification, a fact confirmed by a spokesperson for New Westminster Police Department (which, like other municipal departments in BC receives its training at the Justice Institute of British Columbia). Reporters aren't trained in dog identification either, for that matter, but they should be trained in getting their facts straight to the best of their ability. Sometimes all that takes is a well-placed question and the ability to write